In a shameful first, a (former) New Zealand Member of Parliament has been found guilty of corruption in relation to his duties as an MP. He championed the cause of poor people, while illegally exploiting them.

But the same is not just with Taito Philip Field, but with the Labour Party. Because they defended him time and time again. I draw a contrast between how Labour responded to corruption allegations against Field, and ACT against Donna Awatere-Huata (and hers were allegations that were not even about her role as a MP).

ACT demanded Donna explain herself, and when she could not they suspended her from Caucus, and then used the Electoral Integrity Act to have her thrown out of Parliament. They even went all the way to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, to to defend their actions in getting her thrown out of Parliament they were so appalled and disgusted by her behaviour.

And now let us contrast that with Labour’s shameful response. I’ll give Labour the benefit of the doubt and assume no Labour MP was aware of what had been happening until One News broke the story on 12 September 2005. In reality I think it is highly probable Associate Immigration Minister Damien O’Connor did know. The NZ Immigration Service overseas offices sent warning notes to him. The claim his staff never showed them to him is probably a convenient fiction. I have worked in Ministerial offices and know what sort of stuff would never ever be kept from the Minister, and official warnings about a Ministerial colleague is not one of them. But this can not be proven, so let us deal just with what we do know for sure:

12 Sep 05 – One News airs allegations

13 Sep 05 – PM Helen Clark says “the only thing of which Taito Philip Field is guilty is being helpful“. Yes the PM immediately went into bat for him despite the damning allegations. Her first response was to defend what he had done, not establish the truth.

14 Sep 05 – Field tells NZPA there was no corruption on his part and no investigation was needed as he had been open with the facts. The PM refuses to order an inquiry due to the looming election, in case it affected the vote in South Auckland. Note that Jenny Shipley in 1999 sacked a Minister two days before the election, after a conflict of interest in relation to immigration issues was raised publicly. Shipley did not hold off doing the right thing just because of an election.

20 Sep 05 – Clark agrees to an inquiry into the allegations. However the terms of reference are set incredibly narrow – only if Field had a conflict of interest as a Minister. As Field did not hold portfolio responsibilities for immigration, it was always a foregone conclusion he could not be found to have a conflict of interest as a Minister.

21 Sep 05 – evidence emerges that Field’s wife was being paid from his parliamentary budget, despite this being a breach of the rules.

21 Sep 05 – Noel Ingram appointed to do the inquiry with a report back date of 4 October 2005. Clark wanted this out of the way quickly and had set terms of reference that made the outcome inevitable. She also gave the inquiry no powers to compel testimony.

18 Jul 06 – on the eve of the release of the Ingram report, Clark is asked if Field will be staying on as an MP, and she says “I am sure he will”. So even after having read the Ingram report, she saw nothing of concern excepts for some minor “errors of judgement”.

18 Jul 06 – the Ingram report is released. Ingram details a huge number of abuses and exploitation by Field. He also makes it very clear that he doubts some of what Field told him and that some of the testimony was manufactured. The report of course inevitably says there was no conflict with Field’s ministerial duties – no surprise as he had no portfolio involvement with immigration.

18 Jul 06 – Clark says Field is not barred from returning to a Ministerial role one day.

18 Jul 06 – in an estimates debate, Labour MP Russel Fairbrother says “There is no evidence to doubt what Mr Field says. The overall conclusion is that we have a member of Parliament who works very hard and very diligently, and who cooperated fully with the inquiry”. Fairbrother continues his defence of the diligent Field by saying “So what we have is simply a thorough report, by a very experienced Queen’s Counsel, that upholds the integrity of Taito Phillip Field. Taito Phillip Field is a hard-working member.” And even better he concludes “This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity, and it suggests he will continue to be a profitable and good member of the House”. That is what tht Labour MP said at the time.

18 July 06 – then we had the Deputy Prime Minister in the same debate. Dr Cullen said “Phillip Field handles more immigration cases than probably the whole of the National caucus put together. Why? Because he works hard—unlike that lazy, shallow member [John Key] —on behalf of his constituents.” Dr Cullen holds Field up as an example that all MPs should aspire to.

18 Jul 06 – we then hear again from Dr Cullen during a snap debate: “the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many, many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters.” Yes Dr Cullen, despite having read the damning Ingram report, touts Field as a wonderful MP whose only problem was he cared too much for his constituents. The same ones he has been found guilty of bribery charges about. Finally Cullen concludes “He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party caucus does on constituency cases. If that is what he is guilty of, then I am sure he is happy to plead guilty to working hard on behalf of his constituents.“

19 Jul 06 – Clark rules out a further inquiry into Field as “unnecessary”

21 Jul 06 – Margaret Wilson refuses to refer report to the Privileges Committee despite the massive amount of issues in the report that could be a matter of privilege.

24 Jul 06 – Helen Clark said “The Government has not been embarrassed by the Taito Phillip Field controversy”. It is true they were not embarrassed, but they should have been. They should have hung their heads in shame they defended Field for so long

25 Jul 06 – the Government says there is no need to have the Labour Department investigate Field as his helpers were contractors, not employees, and hence minimum wage laws did not apply. Yes Labour Ministers defended Field exploiting immigrants and paying below the minimum wage, on the basis they were contractors. Does this give you some idea of how sincere they are on such issues?

31 Aug 06. Police announce they are investigating, And Field stood down from Caucus. He is later expelled from Labour – not for any of the multiple abuses detailed in the Ingram Report, but for the cardinal sin of not ruling out standing for another party at the election.

Even if Field’s actions has not been found to be illegal, I blogged on 31 August the huge difference between mere legality and ethically. Long before the Police investigation, the Labour Party should have denounced Field. Instead Clark, Cullen and the rest of the Labour Party defended him. That is why these convictions are their shame.

This would also be a good time for all MPs to come together and declare this should never happen again, and support an Independent Commission against Corruption that can investigate abuses of office by parliamentarians, senior officials and agencies.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

This the single biggest thing to happen in NZ politics in the last 70 years. Internationally it will have huge repercussions for Clark’s credibility. There has to be, but will not be an enquiry into the way judicial matters were handled in NZ during the labour tenure.
The problem is if Key does order such an enquiry he would be seen and painted as vindictive, If he does not he will be seen as still scared of the Iron Fist that is HC

It is and was a disgrace. Field’s actions were embarrassing and disgraceful but he was one man. As you point out the Labour inaction was even worse. This man spent three further years in Parliament after this broke and stood in another election after that. Shameful.

There is no real NZ precedent for this but I would be stunned if he didn’t get binned. I can’t really see it being a sentence of short duration (less than 2 years) so Home D has to be out.

And to think that Labour allowed Field to remain as a candidate for the 2005 election, even when the first allegations came to light – let’s not forget that he was expelled from the Labour caucus, not for being a corrupt politician, but for raining on Helen Clark’s parade by refusing to deny speculation that he was forming another party on the day that she was to set out Labour’s vision for 2007 and beyond.

So was I DPF. I knew him as a “fellow” (gag) unionist, long before he got into Parliament.

He was a sleazy scumbag, and lazy and thick to boot, even then he was more interested in his personal interests than those of the people he was employed to represent. I won’t go into the details here.

How he ever got a Labour selection is beyond me – I guess it was to try to ensure they retained the PI vote, but I knew then it was a very poor selection. And then Helen Clark made the error of judgment in making him a Minister. Who knows why. But it came back to haunt her – her continued tolerance of him after the scandals started to become public, as you document, dragged the Labour Party down in the eyes of the public.

I’ve said before, and will say again, that Clark’s tolerance of Field is one of the 5 main reasons voters decided the Labour Government had to go (the others being their continued defence of the pledge card expenditure, the continued tolerance of David Benson-Pope and Winston Peters who were also electoral liabilities under serious suspicion of impropriety , and the debacle Mark Burton delivered with the Electoral Finance Act.

Anyway, Field is a traitor to the working class, and it is now official. As someone who supports non-custodial sentences for crimes that don’t involve violence, I accept there have to be exceptions. Lets hope this scumbag rots in jail for several years.

Now is there not a connection with Cunliff? And also King? And will this now open the door for investigations into the dealing as far as HBDHB is concerned?

Here is a bit of info for the Lefties. A court of law has now determined beyond doubt that there is in fact corruption in NZ politics and that that corruption extends right to the very core of the previous administration.

Micky savage and MNIJ how does it feel to be part of a party that says it stands for social justice while condoning slave labour for personal gain.

I can just imagine any labour mp standing in the house pontificating about the unemployment, just to be asked if they wanted National to follow Labour’s lead and use the unemployed as slaves instead.

Wow your attack now reeks of faux outrage. Both labour and the greens are traitors to the working classes. Have been since they were highjacked by academics and career unionists. Not the cloth capped variety that was fighting for his mates as well as himself, but the ones that came from varsity still thinking that it was cool to have a Che t-shirt and a beret.

Patrick Starr said: Far out Toad. Anyone reading your post “Lets hope this scumbag rots in jail for several years” could mistake you for David Garrett

Hey, there are (a very few) things David Garret and I agree on. Politics in New Zealand is not (or should not) be so myopic that you don’t support a good idea because of the politics of its proponent. That is what MMP is all about – like Keith Locke and Rodney Hide working together to kill Trevor Mallard’s stupid idea of a rugby stadium on Auckland’s waterfront, despite the fact that they disagree on most other political issues.

Of course a PM is going to bat for their MPs. John does exactly the same thing – e.g. the Christine Rankin saga, he took Bennett’s / Rankin’s word and supported them, much as Helen probably did. I doubt Helen knew at the time this is how things would pan out, much as John wouldn’t if Rankin proves herself to be a liability. Same with Bill English and his restructure of property ownership and the resulting ‘coincidental’ eligibility for accommodation subsidies – Key still stands by him, even if it does look quite shady to ‘ordinary new zealanders’. However one thing John does which Helen probably wouldn’t have is initiate a review – its an admission of sorts that the system is flawed and they’re taking steps to fix it, so big ups to Key for having the integrity to do this.

[DPF: That’s 20 demerits for blatant lying, but I really wonder about you people. I mean do you really think I am incapable of searching through media archives by myself? You don’t think after eight years in Parliament I wouldn’t know how to?]

His only crime was to care too much for the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe freedom in the Taito-dom of Aotea-philip (subject to credit check, non-payment may result in you losing your passport).

Ha! I look forward to the eighteen point timeline on Bennett when she’s found to have breached the privacy act and the paragraph that reads:

“Even if Bennett’s actions has not been found to be illegal, I blogged on 31 August the huge difference between mere legality and ethically. Long before the Police investigation, the National Party should have denounced Bennett.”

I won’t be holding my breath. A very entertaining attempt at the moral high-ground all the same.

[DPF: Unbelievable. You are so removed of any sense of right or wrong, you just can not find it in you to find fault in Labour’s defence of a corrupt Minister who has been found guilty of bribery and corruption. Field had legions of immigrants working for him for free, and you compare it to the release of info on someone’s benefit.]

Good idea DPF. I’m all for an Independent Commission against corruption. If National can establish one it will be one of the best gifts they could give our country. I would happily pay extra taxes to ensure officials are held to account. God help us if we have people like Philip Field, Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson and Winston Peters in power again. When they were in charge you couldn’t trust the Government, Police, the Speaker or any person or agency. Let’s ensure that can’t happen again so we’re not so vulnerable to corruption.

This will not hurt Klarks credibility one little bit, don’t forget she now works for the most corrupt organisation on the face of the earth, a little bit of sleaze or corruption will only improve her chances of promotion within the United Nations.

I hope (in vain I suspect) that our main stream media now go after Klark for all they are worth, we all suspected her government was corrupt and this is proof.

Not that this corruption seems to worry Neville Key, he is so unconcerned about the corrupt Labour government that he appointed Cullen to high office.

You should wake up every morning and offer thanks that Sir Roger saved this sorry little country, it was union parasites and socialism (ironically from Muldoon) that nearly destroyed us.

I have asked you this many times and you have yet to answer, given the nature of the problems faced by Sir Roger what would you have done to archive the sam fantastic results and get the country going again?

Go Toad!!! 23 positive karma and counting!!, I heartily agree with the Toadster, the guy is a scum bag.
Surely Toad your affection for the Labour party must be strained over issues like this.
They don’t care about the working class Toad, lobby your party to stop jumping around Labours heals like a stupid puppy.

I bet the only thing the great Taito is guilty of in the eyes of those in Liarbore is that he was stupid enough to be caught. There will be few tonight hiding under the covers wishing the whole sorry episode would disappear.

The question I have to ask is what would have happened if Labour had have won the last election? I think by the end of year 3 we would have been looking at an international disgrace for a government. These buggers were past their use by date 3 years ago, NZ dodged a bullet for sure.

I believe that the jury was not culturally sensitive. Many people in Foreign affairs who dosh out us taxpayers’ funds to Polynesian nations are aware that what Field did was par for the course. Indeed, Field was incredulous at the fact that charges were even laid against him. He could not, and would not, see that what he had done was wrong. This is because what he did had been done for decades by Polynesian leaders. Field is the first one to be found guilty of what most New Zealanders consider to be awful behaviour, but what Polynesian people consider okay. The natives of the South Pacific have always had a different slant on morality and I think it is our job to encourage them to join the 21st century world.

3. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 that he has reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) : Yes. A number of immigration matters were covered in the Ingram inquiry report, which I have read on a number of occasions.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When reviewing the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report, what information did the Minister find had been provided to the Ingram inquiry by the Hon Phil Goff and Ross Robertson MP regarding the involvement of Taito Phillip Field with Thai national Mr Sunan Siriwan in Samoa?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not turned my attention in particular to the question of what evidence was provided by those members. I am aware, however, that the members briefly visited Mr Field’s house in Samoa but did not discuss immigration matters.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: In reviewing the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report, what steps has the Minister taken to ascertain why the Hon Phil Goff did not volunteer information to the Ingram inquiry regarding Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan, given that in March 2005 Mr Goff reportedly spoke to both Mr Siriwan and Mr Keith Williams at Mr Field’s house in Samoa, while Mr Siriwan and Mr Williams were screening the floor, and discussed with them the work that they were doing to level the floor in preparation for tiling?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What information the member did or did not provide to the Ingram inquiry is not the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that Taito Phillip Field denied that there was any arrangement for Mr Siriwan to work on his house in Samoa, as detailed in paragraph 77 of the Ingram report, when Mr Robertson saw Mr Siriwan and Mr Williams screening the floor at Mr Field’s house in Samoa, and Mr Goff spoke to both men about the detail of the work they were doing, yet both Mr Goff and Mr Robertson failed to provide this material evidence to Dr Ingram?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am sure that Mr Ingram has correctly recorded in paragraph 77 what he was told by Mr Field, but the assertions that the member is making about conversations that other members of this House may have had in Mr Field’s abode do not square with my recollection of those members’ own statements.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: In reviewing the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report, can the Minister confirm that Noel Ingram QC could not establish that Taito Phillip Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on his house prior to his crucial meeting with Associate Minister Damien O’Connor on 17 May 2005, but that if Mr Ross Robertson had provided evidence that he saw Mr Siriwan screening the floor at Taito Phillip Field’s house in mid-March, and Mr Goff had provided evidence that he spoke to Mr Siriwan while he was doing that screening, the findings of the Ingram report might have been different?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As the member knows, there are ongoing matters surrounding those issues that are currently the subject of investigation by the New Zealand Police. That is the proper process, and all members of this House will be very interested in their conclusions.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When reviewing the immigration matters in the Ingram report, did the Minister investigate why his senior Cabinet colleague the Hon Phil Goff failed to tell either him or the Ingram inquiry that he had met Keith Williams while Mr Williams was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, and knew his name, yet failed to come forward with that information when Keith Williams was named as one of the key figures in the instigation of the Ingram inquiry?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I think it has already been established that the Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the individual representations of members of Parliament to the Ingram inquiry. However, I know the member in question to be a man of honour and integrity.

Fuck this makes me angry, even years after the event. Just unashamed, barefaced, corruption. Utter, unmitigated moral bankruptcy shielded by lie upon shameless lie. The mind boggles trying to comprehend the depth of contempt that Labour has for the public. When word of this gets out at the U.N, Clark is certain for promotion.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Hon Phil Goff visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time that Siriwan, a Thai overstayer whom Taito Phillip Field was assisting, commenced work on the Field house; and did the Hon Phil Goff raise with the Minister of Immigration any concerns about the appropriateness of Phillip Field’s “services for immigration assistance” arrangement?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: For the benefit of the member I repeat that I am not prepared to comment on any matter that is or may be the subject of an inquiry.

Shunda barunda said: Surely Toad your affection for the Labour party must be strained over issues like this.

It hasn’t just been strained Shunda. It was entirely ruptuured back in 1985. And, like a hymen, it hasn’t mended itself since. Just like virginity, it can’t be recovered.

But until or unless the Greens treble their vote at an election, we still have to acknowledge that we get the only the dregs of Green policy from any agreement over goverment, be it the last one with Labour or the current one with National.

Reading Hansard, there are an awful lot of questions raised about the conduct of Phil Goff in these matters. How much did he know? To my reading, he knew quite a lot. It would appear that he has refused to assist in the Ingram Report and was in possession of facts about the case that were different to public statements make by Field.

Oh, and did you see Fields daughter on the news, blaming “those frigging asians”. Great look that!

There is nothing wrong with feeling angry, however you should keep hold of that anger and vent it toward the gutless prick who is our PM and any other Nat who supported the appointment of Cullen to the board and Klark to the UN.

If I recall correctly Matt McCarten was the first of the ‘typically support Labour’ union types to speak out against Field and Labour’s handling of the whole mess. I recall it this way because for me it was a defining moment in my opinions of Matt McCarten. I’m not saying that possibly you and others did not voice your disquiet over this but I don’t actually recall any other ‘typically Labour supporters’ speaking out against Labour supporting him during that time. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

So was I DPF. I knew him as a “fellow” (gag) unionist, long before he got into Parliament.

He was a sleazy scumbag, and lazy and thick to boot, even then he was more interested in his personal interests than those of the people he was employed to represent. I won’t go into the details here.

How he ever got a Labour selection is beyond me…

Hang on. You’ve just described Field as a sleazy scumbag, lazy and thick, who was more interested in his personal interests than those of the people he was employed to represent, and then you wonder how he was selected for Labour?!

burt said: If I recall correctly Matt McCarten was the first of the ‘typically support Labour’ union types to speak out against Field and Labour’s handling of the whole mess. I recall it this way because for me it was a defining moment in my opinions of Matt McCarten. I’m not saying that possibly you and others did not voice your disquiet over this but I don’t actually recall any other ‘typically Labour supporters’ speaking out against Labour supporting him during that time.

I’m not a “typically Labour supporter” burt – I’m a Green supporter, but will still criticise the Greens publicly when I think they’ve got it wrong, as I did with the ETS.

I’m not someone from the nascence of blogs either (note my kiwiblog comments number far less than half of yours burt, and its not becasue I am inattentive to this site). I suspect when McCarten wrote what you quote I wasn’t blogging at all so had no public profile.

One day I hope Noel Ingram tells the real story behind the inquiry. How Helen Clark dragged the inquiry out so that Field could remain a Labour MP under cover of the inquiry. How Clark never wanted to find the truth but set up the sham inquiry as both a delaying tactic (she needed his vote) and she could use the inquiry to hold people off. Remember how long we had this farce of Field being on “leave” but Clark still pocketed his vote. I must say I do admire her political skill in the way she handled Field and it may serve as a useful blueprint for the future if there is another Government that relies on the vote of a corrupt MP for its majority.

Here’s something I’d be interested in learning the answer to: Under NZ constitutional law, if say a law was passed by a majority of one, but if one of the Member’s voting for the passing of the law had been engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the passing of the law (and was subsequently found guilty of criminal conduct that banned him from office), is the law that passed by a majority of one, still valid? (Not a very well worded question, but you’ll get my drift)

“He is just guilty of helping people”. Let those words resonate, shall we. I’m pleased we no longer have a Prime Minister with a moral compass pointing to political ends rather than what might be in the best interests of the country. Thankfully those days are lifted from us.

Further to my question/scenerio above, of course I realise a conviction was only entered against the Member at a later date, but the crime had already been perpetrated. You could of course, go on infinitum. In fact, any number of subsequent offences may have been committed and any number of laws subsequently passed by a majority of one. Seems to me there might be something to look at here, in bringing these matters to trial as a matter of absolute urgency.

All good, Sorry I wasn’t having a go at you personally about being quiet on this. Clearly your other posts in this thread illustrate that you and I agree on this issue.

I wasn’t trying to frame you personally in what I saw as a stunning silence from many [workers rights activists] seemingly because it was a Labour MP and the PM’s inquiry eventually ‘exonerated’ Field. I mainly recall the McCarten situation because I had taken a bath on a blog a few weeks earlier because I had no defense to something along the lines of; ‘It is only ‘right wing numpties’ speaking up about Field – It’s a beat up and you have been sucked in…’

McCarten publishing what he did a few days/weeks after that was a refreshing read.

DPF,
Your preparation of this post, taking into account your background and your connections, will raise some suspicions around the Press Gallery me thinks! I hope it doesn’t backfire.

[DPF: It will raise no suspicions. Most of the gallery know me well enough that if I say I compiled it 100% myself, they will believe me. And I did. All I did was the same think the media did in the Weatherston trial – prepare a piece in advance of the verdict. I started work on it on Monday afternoon]

One issue that always troubled me, that received no attention regardless of the trial outcome, was the propriety of the very extensive “help” Field gave to all these illegal immigrants, doubtless at the expense of his lawfully resident Mangere voters.

MP’s (more especially Electorate MP’s like Field) are elected to represent a specific constituency, but none of these illegal workers/immigrants were lawfully in New Zealand, so they should never have been regarded as constituents – he should not have been making representations on their behalf to Government agencies and Ministers.

Surely MP’s should confine themselves to representing only those people who are lawfully in this country?

Patrick Starr. This family outrage is to be encouraged. A smart journalist who knows the PI mindset should be able to turn this into an expose of exactly what Labour has been up to in South Auckland these past ten years or so.

Here’s the headline:

Loyal Servant Shafted By Labour.

Here’s the subtext:

After years of doing the right thing for Labour by organising heaps of ‘extra’ votes and sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party, our father and our family has been treated like dirt. They knew what our father was doing because they asked him to do it. blah blah and so on and so forth.

And John Armstrong thinks Labour can heave a sigh of relief because the verdict is out? He’s dreaming.

August 5th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Paul – the short answer to your question is “yes”. The law is still valid.

Graeme – Thank you for that. I was sure that would be the answer of course, but does it not raise constitutional issues where laws (hypothetically) could be passed by the vote of an individual who say was engaging in criminal conduct at the time that the law was passed, but subsequently found guilty of that criminal conduct that would ban him/her, from office? I wonder if such a matter has ever been tested in a court of law, anywhere in the world??

“This would also be a good time for all MPs to come together and declare this should never happen again, and support an Independent Commission against Corruption that can investigate abuses of office by parliamentarians, senior officials and agencies.”

John Key said this morning that Phillip Field’s case was an isolated incident and there were no other cases of corruption in NZ politics. Although I fervently believe we need an Independent Commission I wont hold my breath as it would appear that Mr. Key doesn’t/wont believe there is/was anything wrong with the way politicians did business.

To be kind I can only think he is trying to protect NZ reputation overseas. Big mistake.

I think expecting any sort of reasoned debate or coherent thinking from the standard is wishful thinking.
Theirs so much hate over at that site it clouds their thinking.
Too many jackbooted unionist thugs.

To LC re acommodation corruption- please look at the greens pension setup, and at least the Nats have opened the books to be reviewed what sins are hidden under the bed clothes from past regeimes .e.g refer The Hon Chris Carter spending habits. What is happening here is shooting the messenger. The thing that I think has come out of having someone who was not brought up in any “party system” and has become institutionalised that if nothing else we get a clean out of the old boys school way of doing things and as a country there is some progression to maturing. Perhaps to a level of having evan a real constitution or a upper house.